Introduction: Has a Morphogenic Society Arrived?

Chapter
Part of the Social Morphogenesis book series (SOCMOR)

Abstract

This is the last of five books in the series on ‘Social Morphogenesis’. Contributors explore whether or not Late Modernity is transforming into a Morphogenic social formation and, insofar as morphogenetic processes are intensifying, do these promote or diminish human well-being (Eudaimonia). After summarizing the four main characteristics of a Morphogenic Society, as discussed in previous volumes, we ask what needs to be the case for it to foster the human flourishing of all and the Common Good. It is maintained that this hinges upon human ‘capacities’ being developed and ‘liabilities’ reduced in relation to people’s ‘concerns’ (what matters most to them). It is argued that without further-reaching equality and participation the zero-sum replication of winners and losers will continue, meaning new opportunities do not enhance the thriving of the many.

Keywords

M/M approach Defining morphogenic society Eudaimonia New variety Distribution of variety Opportunities and their beneficiaries 

References

  1. Al-Amoudi, I. (2016). In letter and in spirit: Social morphogenesis and the interpretation of codified social rules. In Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity (Vol. 4). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Al-Amoudi, I., & Latsis, J. (2015). Death contested: Morphonecrosis and conflicts of interpretation. In Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms transforming the social order. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Archer, M. S. (1988). Culture and agency: The place of culture in social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Archer, M. S. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, M. S. (2007). Making our way through the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, M. S. (2012). The reflexive imperative in late modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Archer, M. S. (2013a [1979]). Social origins of educational systems. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2013b). Social morphogenesis (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2014a). Late modernity: Trajectories towards morphogenic society (Vol. 2). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Archer, M. S. (2014b). The generative mechanisms re-configuring late modernity. In Archer (Ed.), Late modernity (Vol. 2). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Archer, M. S. (Ed.). (2016a). Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity, Vol.4, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Archer, M. S. (2016b). Anormative social regulation: The attempt to cope with social morphogenesis. In Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity, Vol. 4, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Ashby, R. (1956). In introduction to cybernetics. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bhaskar, R. (1979). The possibility of naturalism. Harvester: Brighton.Google Scholar
  16. Black, J. (2001). Decentering regulation: Understanding the role of regulation and self-regulation in a post-regulatory world. Current Legal Problems, 54(1), 103–146.Google Scholar
  17. Bloch, E. (1959–1986). The principle of hope (3 vols), Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Bunge, M. (2004). How does it work: The search for explanatory mechanisms? Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 182–210.Google Scholar
  20. Cabinet Office Paper. (2013). www.gov.uk/government/publicationd/when laws become too complex (downloaded 21.11.2014).
  21. Carrigan, M. (2016). The fragile movements of late modernity. In Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity (Vol. 4). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Dahrendorf, R. (1994). The changing quality of citizenship. In B. van Steenberger (Ed.), The condition of citizenship (pp. 10–19) London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Donati, P. (2008). Discovering the relational character of the common good. In M. S. Archer & P. Donati (Eds.), Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together. Vatican City: Vatican City Press.Google Scholar
  24. Donati, P. (2013). Morphogenesis and social networks: Relational steering not mechanical feedboack. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis (Vol. 1). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Donati, P. (2016). The relational understanding of the origin and morphogenetic change of social morality. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity (Vol. 4). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Donati, P., & Archer, M. S. (2015). The relational subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2015). Climate change and society: Sociological perspectives. Oxford University Press: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frankfurt, H. G. (1988). The importance of what we care about: Philosophical essays. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Fuchs, C. (2008). Internet and society: Social theory in the information age. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems of sociological theory. London: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gorski, P. S. (2016). Reflexive secularity: Thoughts on the reflexive imperative in a secular age. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity (Vol. 4). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Gross, N. (2009). A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 74, 358–379.Google Scholar
  33. Hartwig, M. (Ed.). (2007). Dictionary of critical realism. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. House of Lords. (2011). House of lords, Library Note, LLN 2011/028.Google Scholar
  36. Lawson, T. (2015). The modern corporation: The site of a mechanism (of global social change) that is out-of-control. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Generative mechanisms (Vol. 3). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Lawson, T. (2016). Collective practices and norms. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Morphogenesis and the crisis of normativity (Vol. 4). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Maccarini, A. (2014). The emergent social qualities of a ‘morphogenic’ society, cultures, structures, and forms of reflexivity. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), 2, Late modernity. Google Scholar
  39. Maccarini, A. (2015). Turbulence and relational conjunctures: The emergence of morphogenic environments. In M. S. Archer, (Ed.), 3, Generative mechanisms. Google Scholar
  40. Maruyama, M. (2003). Causal loops, interaction and creativity. Int Rev Soc, 13(3), 607–628.Google Scholar
  41. Porpora, D. V. (2013). Morphogenesis and social change. In M. S. Archer (Ed.), Social morphogenesis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Porpora, D. V. (2015). Reconstructing sociology: The critical realist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sayer, A. (2011). Why things matter to people, social science, values and ethical life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teune, H., & Mlinar, Z. (1978). The developmental logic of social systems. Beverly Hills/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Vaughan, M., & Archer, M. S. (1971). Social conflict and educational change in England and France, 17-89-1848. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Zamagni, S. (2008). Reciprocity, civil economy, common good. In M. S. Archer & P. Donati (Eds.), Pursuing the common good: How solidarity and subsidiarity can work together. Vatican City: Vatican City Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social Ontology, Department of SociologyUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations